petra1:


Struggle? Is that what you think . I made few point s out of many . If you side with him kindly prove me wrong

My post:

sagenaija:

You said you defend the body of Christ and not any individual. You are yet to show how DSA is attacking the body of Christ and not individuals.

That is what I am asking.

Pick an issue. Show us what DSA said. Expose  how he is wrong using the Scripture as your proof. Then the issues will be clear and you will not fall into the same error you're accusing him of. But I'm yet to see any of that here. 
 
If I'm to agree with your statement that "those who attack others are mostly envious or ignorant" then the same will apply to you! Do you or do you not see that? You're attacking DSA. So, is it out of envy or ignorance? What makes your attack right and his own wrong?

You said: "The fact that you dont like what I  do or you dont understand what I do doesn't mean that Iam wrong". Could it be that this can be applied to how you view DSA? Just maybe?

So, again:
Why don't you guys concentrate on the real issues presented by DSA rather than go the path of outright attacks and condemnation?

What has he said that is wrong? Why and how is it wrong? What does the Scripture say with regards to the issues?

Your response to it:

Read my post again. Maybe you read it hurriedly. I.mentioned some of his errors 

He teaches against against the grace of God . He teaches against the blessing of God. He attacks other ministers unjustly . Several issues

My reply to you:

If I hurriedly read your post, I would not be quoting your exact statements and commenting on them. Would I?

I thought you would take the issues I raised one by one and address them but that has not happened. 

Instead what I see again is generalised comments about his teaching against grace and the blessing of God and attacks on ministers. 

How exactly has he taught against grace? How does he teach against the blessing of God? What are the attacks on ministers? 
That way we would be addressing ISSUES and not focus on the person.

So, what are the ISSUES you pointed out?
It would be good for us to know them clearly and be able to see how they disprove what DSA is doing.

sagenaija:

My post:


Your response to it:


My reply to you:


So, what are the ISSUES you pointed out?
It would be good for us to know them clearly and be able to see how they disprove what DSA is doing.

A man who regard himself as the only true man of God is insane. Yes he regards all the men of God as fake or show me any man of God he accepted as true apart from Kumuyi

DSA, please come back to Nigeria if you are not afraid of failure.

Is DSA coming back?

sagenaija:

My post:


Your response to it:


My reply to you:


So, what are the ISSUES you pointed out?
It would be good for us to know them clearly and be able to see how they disprove what DSA is doing.

Followers of DSA still dont get it. He is like a drowning man grabbing everything along the way to survive . Sometimes he brings old videos of 10 years ago to attack a man of God as though it's a current video. Then he misrepresented the content of the video . He Is out on a mission to discredit every Pastor and lure members to himself. I will prove it to you if you have the time .

You talked about the content of his post. Ok let's look at the content

He made a post recently attacking all Nigerian pastors . He said the Pastors are manipulating people in deliverance. He said nothing like spiritual husband experience. He said the use officials the " touch not mine annointed is unscriptural to use it for pastors . That everyone is anointed. Etc .

But he is wrong on every count

petra1:


Followers of DSA still dont get it. He is like a drowning man grabbing everything along the way to survive . Sometimes he brings old videos of 10 years ago to attack a man of God as though it's a current video. Then he misrepresented the content of the video . He Is out on a mission to discredit every Pastor and lure members to himself. I will prove it to you if you have the time .

You talked about the content of his post. Ok let's look at the content

He made a post recently attacking all Nigerian pastors . He said the Pastors are manipulating people in deliverance. He said nothing like spiritual husband experience. He said the use officials the " touch not mine annointed is unscriptural to use it for pastors . That everyone is anointed. Etc .

But he is wrong on every count

Please give your scriptural justification.

sagenaija:

Please give your scriptural justification.

Touch not my anointed .
He said it’s not applicable to minister and that it’s a manipulation . He is very wrong Here .

There were 3 offices of leadership God anointed men . The king, The priest and the office of the Prophet . The people must recognize the anointing for the office . It is sacred . It’s a only a man who doesn’t know the Holy Spirit that look down on the offices in the kingdom of God .

God chose Israel among the nations , others nation must know the difference . God chose leaders among his people . The people must recognize the anointing on their offices . That’s why David could not kill Saul many times when he had the opportunity .

That’s whynDavid restrained Abidjan from killing Saul

1 Samuel 26:9
And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless?

The man that finally claimed that he killed Saul the king was put to death because he touched the anointed

2 Samuel 1:16
And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed.

God also told the people not to insult leadership . Paul the Apostle once insulted a man who had asked soldiers to slap him . But when Saul realized the man he insulted was a high priest he had to apologize .

Acts 23:4-5
Those who stood near exclaimed, Do you rail at and insult the high priest of God?
And Paul said, I was not conscious, brethren, that he was a high priest; for the Scripture says, You shall not speak ill of a ruler of your people.

Same thing goes for casting out devils . It’s obvious DSA didnt have the supernatural in the church he was pastoring because some of his criticism are so elementary . If someone is rolling on the ground under demonic manifestation DSA will it is not demon ! It is manipulation and sugestioms .

DSA May be a good motivational speaker but he need to school himself in spiritual matters than going public and ignorantly cause chaos for Gods people.

[quote author=petra1 post=85878906]

Touch not my anointed .
He said it’s not applicable to minister and that it’s a manipulation . He is very wrong Here .

There were 3 offices of leadership God anointed men . The king, The priest and the office of the Prophet . The people must recognize the anointing for the office . It is sacred . It’s a only a man who doesn’t know the Holy Spirit that look down on the offices in the kingdom of God .

God chose Israel among the nations , others nation must know the difference . God chose leaders among his people . The people must recognize the anointing on their offices . That’s why David could not kill Saul many times when he had the opportunity .

That’s whynDavid restrained Abidjan from killing Saul

1 Samuel 26:9
And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless?

The man that finally claimed that he killed Saul the king was put to death because he touched the anointed

2 Samuel 1:16
And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed.

God also told the people not to insult leadership . Paul the Apostle once insulted a man who had asked soldiers to slap him . But when Saul realized the man he insulted was a high priest he had to apologize .

Acts 23:4-5
Those who stood near exclaimed, Do you rail at and insult the high priest of God?
And Paul said, I was not conscious, brethren, that he was a high priest; for the Scripture says, You shall not speak ill of a ruler of your people.

Same thing goes for casting out devils . It’s obvious DSA didnt have the supernatural in the church he was pastoring because some of his criticism are so elementary . If someone is rolling on the ground under demonic manifestation DSA will it is not demon ! It is manipulation and sugestioms .

DSA May be a good motivational speaker but he need to school himself in spiritual matters than going public and ignorantly cause chaos for Gods people.[/quote)


Of a truth you just said the obvious about DSA, he is an orator and motivational speaker and no longer a man of God. If you observe, it seems he is afraid to come back to Nigeria being afraid of failure.

@ princevinco You may need to edit your post you didnt close your quote well [ )

petra1:


Touch not my anointed .
He said it’s not applicable to minister and that it’s a manipulation . He is very wrong Here .
.

I don't have the details of what DSA said in his position but a nairaland thread on the matter is this:
 https://www.nairaland.com/1997361/touch-not-anointed-what-does/3#28064882

Who are the anointed of God today: 1 John 2:27 - all Christians. So, under the new covenant all believers are God's anointed. If the phrase is to be used then it must apply to all of God's anointed.

Believers need to be careful in lifting biblical phrases out of context. We must ensure correct application of the word of God. We must rightly divide the word of truth.

Nothing in the application of the phrase to the new covenant believers suggest that it must be used selectively. Unless we are to return to the old covenant. After all, are all believers not royal priests? Royalty and priests.

Also nothing in that phrase suggests that it restricts pointing out errors of any man of God. We are to "test every spirit", contend ernestly for the faith and have nothing to do with fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them.

sagenaija:

I don't have the details of what DSA said in his position but a nairaland thread on the matter is this:
 https://www.nairaland.com/1997361/touch-not-anointed-what-does/3#28064882

Who are the anointed of God today: 1 John 2:27 - all Christians. So, under the new covenant all believers are God's anointed. If the phrase is to be used then it must apply to all of God's anointed.

Believers need to be careful in lifting biblical phrases out of context. We must ensure correct application of the word of God. We must rightly divide the word of truth.

Nothing in the application of the phrase to the new covenant believers suggest that it must be used selectively. Unless we are to return to the old covenant. After all, are all believers not royal priests? Royalty and priests.

Also nothing in that phrase suggests that it restricts pointing out errors of any man of God. We are to "test every spirit", contend ernestly for the faith and have nothing to do with fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them.

Wrong , principles are constant either Old Testament or New .
Gods kingdom runs by leadership not democracy .

I gave you the the instance of Paul speaking against the highpriest. That's new testament .

There are offices of leadership in Gods kingdom and such annointed offices must be respected . There is no new testament God or new testament holy spirit. This rebellious statement " WE ARE ALL ANOINTED" has been there from the Old testament. God called his people anointed in Generic term but he also anointed certain offices over the people . Some rebels capitalised on the former to attack moses.

Num 16:3 — Num 16:4
They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?”
When Moses heard this, he fell facedown

You will also find similar principles in epistles.

petra1:


Wrong , principles are constant either Old Testament or New .
Gods kingdom runs by leadership not democracy .

I gave you the the instance of Paul speaking against the highpriest. That's new testament .

There are offices of leadership in Gods kingdom and such annointed offices must be respected . There is no new testament God or new testament holy spirit. This rebellious statement " WE ARE ALL ANOINTED" has been there from the Old testament. God called his people anointed in Generic term but he also anointed certain offices over the people . Some rebels capitalised on the former to attack moses.

Num 16:3 — Num 16:4
They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?”
When Moses heard this, he fell facedown

You will also find similar principles in epistles.

What is CONSTANT in all dispensations is GOD.

NOTHING else is.

There was the Old Covenant and a change came when the New Covenant replaced it.

So, there are changes. Only God remains constant.

You're wrong when you say principles are constant either in the old or new covenant. It is only God that remains constant. Under the new covenant for example, believers DO NOT have to go to a priest for the confession of sin.

While there may be no 'new testament God or new testament holy spirit' there is certainly God's New Testament DIFFERENT from the old and God's new model of operations of the Holy Spirit DIFFERENT from His operations in the under the Old Testament.
These are BASICS any church age believer should understand.

Do you realise that the instance of Paul you gave need to be clearly understood and explained?
Did the high priest have any part in the Church?
Was God still administering his divine program through the high priest or even Israel at this point in time?
So, when Paul did what he did how are we to understand it?
Do we have the example of the SAME Paul directly confronting another leader - Peter - for his misdemeanor?
What do you make of that?

The 1 John 2: 27 I stated clearly says that all believers are God's anointed. Do you dispute that? ALL BELIEVERS are said to be royal priests - 1Peter 2: 9. Again is that incorrect?

I agree that there is the need for respect for leadership. But what happens when what leadership says, instructs or do CONTRADICTS the word of God? Which is superior - the leadership or the word of God? Do we keep mum at such wrong, disturbing and perhaps even blasphemous statements and positions?

Do you realise that the Lord Jesus commended those who separated themselves from wrong doctrines in the churches he addressed in Revelation 2 & 3?
What can we learn from that?

Can we  "test every spirit" without pointing out where there is wrong? Can we contend ernestly for the faith without voicing out aberrant positions? And how do we have nothing to do with fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them if by "opposition" we mean SILENCE?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
What is CONSTANT in all dispensations is GOD.

NOTHING else is.

There was the Old Covenant and a change came when the New Covenant replaced it.

So, there are changes. Only God remains constant.

You're wrong when you say principles are constant either in the old or new covenant. It is only God that remains constant. Under the new covenant for example, believers DO NOT have to go to a priest for the confession of sin.

God never changed his principles. The agreements changed but the PRINCIPLES within the agreements did not change. Honouring parents for e.g in both old and new testaments still had the promise of long life. So a christian is not allowed to dishonour his/her parents even if they were voodoo worshippers.

While there may be no 'new testament God or new testament holy spirit' there is certainly God's New Testament DIFFERENT from the old and God's new model of operations of the Holy Spirit DIFFERENT from His operations in the under the Old Testament.
These are BASICS any church age believer should understand.

What is amusing is your assumption that the covenants nullified the principles. Of course, you cannot back that up from scripture. But you are almost patronising petra1 who has this basic knowledge that you obviously do not have.

Do you realise that the instance of Paul you gave need to be clearly understood and explained?
Did the high priest have any part in the Church?
Was God still administering his divine program through the high priest or even Israel at this point in time?
So, when Paul did what he did how are we to understand it?

Paul himself explained why he did it. He quoted an OLD TESTAMENT principle and showed that it was still to be obeyed even in the new testament. That principle is -"do not speak evil about those in authority".

Do we have the example of the SAME Paul directly confronting another leader - Peter - for his misdemeanor?
What do you make of that?

Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Peter visited Paul in Galatia (Paul's jurisdiction). Peter knew the truth (the right thing to do) as he had already received that vision from God and was acting orderly until men from James (Jews) visited and then Peter acted contrary. So Paul (under his own jurisdiction) rightly corrected Peter for knowing the truth and acting differently. When the same Paul visited Jerusalem (he did not contend with James and co even when he did not agree with them).

The 1 John 2: 27 I stated clearly says that all believers are God's anointed. Do you dispute that? ALL BELIEVERS are said to be royal priests - 1Peter 2: 9. Again is that incorrect?

All Jews in the OLD testament were also regarded as a kingdom of priests and God's anointed. David was God's anointed. Saul was God's anointed. Yet David refused to wrong Saul because he knew not to "touch the lord's anointed". So what anointing was David respecting? Saul's anointing as the current leader of the Jews.

I agree that there is the need for respect for leadership. But what happens when what leadership says, instructs or do CONTRADICTS the word of God? Which is superior - the leadership or the word of God? Do we keep mum at such wrong, disturbing and perhaps even blasphemous statements and positions?

You can correct a wrong teaching without attacking the personality or character of the person. Two different issues. One is evil and the other is scriptural.

Do you realise that the Lord Jesus commended those who separated themselves from wrong doctrines in the churches he addressed in Revelation 2 & 3?
What can we learn from that?

Same as afore. You can attack teachings by the word (not what you think) but not persons.

Can we  "test every spirit" without pointing out where there is wrong? Can we contend ernestly for the faith without voicing out aberrant positions? And how do we have nothing to do with fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them if by "opposition" we mean SILENCE?

Expose false teachings and doctrines BY THE WORD. Contend earnestly for the faith by holding unto what the word says. Any one calling people's names, insulting them and even telling lies, is simply voicing the thoughts of demons.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
What is CONSTANT in all dispensations is GOD.

NOTHING else is.

There was the Old Covenant and a change came when the New Covenant replaced it.

his principles in the covenants are still constant

So, there are changes. Only God remains constant.

Change in operation does not change the principles behind it . Have you heard that God repented ? Yes he did . It’s still a principle

You're wrong when you say principles are constant . . .Under the new covenant for example, believers DO NOT have to go to a priest for the confession of sin

Confessions and cleansing will still be principles .it depends on the case .

James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.

John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Do you realise that the instance of Paul you gave need to be clearly understood and explained?
Did the high priest have any part in the Church?
Was God still administering his divine program through the high priest or even Israel at this point in time?

That should have been a good reason for Paul not to apologize , yet he did . Think about that . he even quoted scripture to back up his apology . Just as he did concerning parents .

Ephesians 6:1-3
Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Do we have the example of the SAME Paul directly confronting another leader - Peter - for his misdemeanor?
What do you make of that?

It was his church . It was his jurisdiction .He had authority there .Peter was only a guest . A guest minister should not teach contrary to his host . Pst Adeboye cannot go to deeper life church where men sit on one side and women on the other side and make mingle .

A minister can correct a wrong under his jurisdiction But member cannot rebuke Pastors.

1 Timothy 5:1
Rebuke not an elder

The 1 John 2: 27 I stated clearly says that all believers are God's anointed. Do you dispute that? ALL BELIEVERS are said to be royal priests - 1Peter 2: 9. Again is that incorrect?

It’s not a New Testament revelation . It’s been a generic principle from the Old as I told you before . Peter was making reference to it.

Exodus 19:6
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

I agree that there is the need for respect for leadership. But what happens when what leadership says, instructs or do CONTRADICTS the word of God?

God says to reject him (his authority ) You leave the place . That’s if you’re sure he is wrong .The fact that you don’t agree with a teaching or deed doesn’t mean the person is wrong . you need to know the principle behind the action first . That’s the problem with Adelaja. He criticized mostly based on his own limited knowledge . If you’re not a healing minister how can you be attacking a man with gift of healing ?

In Mat 18:15-18 Besides Jesus admonish that if there is an issue , to go to the person first . If the person did not listen, Get others to talk with him before you can reject such a one . We correct in love . Not public attack and name calling On issue that does not concern us and without even knowing the root of the matter

Do you realise that the Lord Jesus commended those who separated themselves from wrong doctrines in the churches he addressed in Revelation 2 & 3?
What can we learn from that?

I agree . That’s a good thing to do . But not insults and attack because at the end of the day you may be wrong . That’s why it’s first good to ask question . If a member feel his pastor is doing heretic thing . He should simply go to him for clarification in humility . The approach should be for clarification based on scriptures. And if the answer is not Favourqbke , just leave . It’s not by abusing your pastor . Doctrine of deeper life may differ from redeem let God be the judge

Can we  "test every spirit" without pointing out where there is wrong? Can we contend ernestly for the faith without voicing out aberrant positions? And how do we have nothing to do with fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them if by "opposition" we mean SILENCE?

You need to point that to DSA . He’s not “discerning the body ”

Anyone who encourage brethren to rise against ministers is in error .

Jude 1:8
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

2 Peter 2:10-12
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

If DSA has a genuine motive . He should have gone to the ministers individually . Not public attack .Especially doing it in front of sinners on social media . without even giving them the opportunity to explain their actions . “ supposing DSA is wrong ( which he is many times) But the harm has been done to God’s children . God frowns at it when we . Wash dirty linen before the world . The scripture below shows how God sees it

1 Corinthians 6:1-6
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

Maestro21:


God never changed his principles. The agreements changed but the PRINCIPLES within the agreements did not change. Honouring parents for e.g in both old and new testaments still had the promise of long life. So a christian is not allowed to dishonour his/her parents even if they were voodoo worshippers.



What is amusing is your assumption that the covenants nullified the principles. Of course, you cannot back that up from scripture. But you are almost patronising petra1 who has this basic knowledge that you obviously do not have.



Paul himself explained why he did it. He quoted an OLD TESTAMENT principle and showed that it was still to be obeyed even in the new testament. That principle is -"do not speak evil about those in authority".



Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Peter visited Paul in Galatia (Paul's jurisdiction). Peter knew the truth (the right thing to do) as he had already received that vision from God and was acting orderly until men from James (Jews) visited and then Peter acted contrary. So Paul (under his own jurisdiction) rightly corrected Peter for knowing the truth and acting differently. When the same Paul visited Jerusalem (he did not contend with James and co even when he did not agree with them).



All Jews in the OLD testament were also regarded as a kingdom of priests and God's anointed. David was God's anointed. Saul was God's anointed. Yet David refused to wrong Saul because he knew not to "touch the lord's anointed". So what anointing was David respecting? Saul's anointing as the current leader of the Jews.



You can correct a wrong teaching without attacking the personality or character of the person. Two different issues. One is evil and the other is scriptural.



Same as afore. You can attack teachings by the word (not what you think) but not persons.



Expose false teachings and doctrines BY THE WORD. Contend earnestly for the faith by holding unto what the word says. Any one calling people's names, insulting them and even telling lies, is simply voicing the thoughts of demons.

I didn’t see your post before I posted mine . I guess we were typing at the same time . And reading through your post now it was as thoughI read yours first . You spoke my heart .

petra1:

his principles in the covenants are still constant

Change in operation does not change the principles behind it . Have you heard that God repented ? Yes he did . It’s still a principle

Confessions and cleansing will still be principles .it depends on the case .

James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.

John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


That should have been a good reason for Paul not to apologize , yet he did . Think about that . he even quoted scripture to back up his apology . Just as he did concerning parents .

Ephesians 6:1-3
Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

It was his church . It was his jurisdiction .He had authority there .Peter was only a guest . A guest minister should not teach contrary to his host . Pst Adeboye cannot go to deeper life church where men sit on one side and women on the other side and make mingle .

A minister can correct a wrong under his jurisdiction But member cannot rebuke Pastors.

1 Timothy 5:1
Rebuke not an elder

It’s not a New Testament revelation . It’s been a generic principle from the Old as I told you before . Peter was making reference to it.

Exodus 19:6
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

God says to reject him (his authority ) You leave the place . That’s if you’re sure he is wrong .The fact that you don’t agree with a teaching or deed doesn’t mean the person is wrong . you need to know the principle behind the action first . That’s the problem with Adelaja. He criticized mostly based on his own limited knowledge . If you’re not a healing minister how can you be attacking a man with gift of healing ?

In Mat 18:15-18 Besides Jesus admonish that if there is an issue , to go to the person first . If the person did not listen, Get others to talk with him before you can reject such a one . We correct in love . Not public attack and name calling On issue that does not concern us and without even knowing the root of the matter

I agree . That’s a good thing to do . But not insults and attack because at the end of the day you may be wrong . That’s why it’s first good to ask question . If a member feel his pastor is doing heretic thing . He should simply go to him for clarification in humility . The approach should be for clarification based on scriptures. And if the answer is not Favourqbke , just leave . It’s not by abusing your pastor . Doctrine of deeper life may differ from redeem let God be the judge

You need to point that to DSA . He’s not “discerning the body ”

Anyone who encourage brethren to rise against ministers is in error .

Jude 1:8
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

2 Peter 2:10-12
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

If DSA has a genuine motive . He should have gone to the ministers individually . Not public attack .Especially doing it in front of sinners on social media . without even giving them the opportunity to explain their actions . “ supposing DSA is wrong ( which he is many times) But the harm has been done to God’s children . God frowns at it when we . Wash dirty linen before the world . The scripture below shows how God sees it

1 Corinthians 6:1-6
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

Maestro21:

God never changed his principles. The agreements changed but the PRINCIPLES within the agreements did not change. Honouring parents for e.g in both old and new testaments still had the promise of long life. So a christian is not allowed to dishonour his/her parents even if they were voodoo worshippers.

What is amusing is your assumption that the covenants nullified the principles. Of course, you cannot back that up from scripture. But you are almost patronising petra1 who has this basic knowledge that you obviously do not have.

Paul himself explained why he did it. He quoted an OLD TESTAMENT principle and showed that it was still to be obeyed even in the new testament. That principle is -"do not speak evil about those in authority".

Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Peter visited Paul in Galatia (Paul's jurisdiction). Peter knew the truth (the right thing to do) as he had already received that vision from God and was acting orderly until men from James (Jews) visited and then Peter acted contrary. So Paul (under his own jurisdiction) rightly corrected Peter for knowing the truth and acting differently. When the same Paul visited Jerusalem (he did not contend with James and co even when he did not agree with them).

All Jews in the OLD testament were also regarded as a kingdom of priests and God's anointed. David was God's anointed. Saul was God's anointed. Yet David refused to wrong Saul because he knew not to "touch the lord's anointed". So what anointing was David respecting? Saul's anointing as the current leader of the Jews.

You can correct a wrong teaching without attacking the personality or character of the person. Two different issues. One is evil and the other is scriptural.

Same as afore. You can attack teachings by the word (not what you think) but not persons.

Expose false teachings and doctrines BY THE WORD. Contend earnestly for the faith by holding unto what the word says. Any one calling people's names, insulting them and even telling lies, is simply voicing the thoughts of demons.

Sometimes when words and phrases are bandied around there is need for the presenters of such words and phrases to clearly explain what they mean by them.

Speaking evil about those in authority is DEFINITELY NOT the same as pointing out a wrong doctrine such persons have presented. Jesus was a religious ruler in his own right during his ministry and he vehemently pointed out the wrongs of the Pharisees and other religious rulers of Israel. Was he by that speaking evil of them? For example: If I say that Pastor A’s statement that “If don’t pay your tithe you’re going to end up in hell” is unscriptural and heretical, does that constitute an insult or a personal attack on his person?

When you talk about ‘anointed men of God’, is the Christian who holds no position of leadership in the church not also anointed? If so, is it the issue of ‘anointing’ or is it the issue of leadership and response to such that you are talking about?

On the repentance of God have you heard of anthropomorphism?

Is 1 Timothy 5:1 speaking about pointing out wrong doctrines that an older man peddles? In that Paul’s advise to Timothy, who was a young pastor, can we say then that pastors should follow that statement; in which case it does not flow in one direction only – what do you think?

You both have still not shown me how one can “test every spirit” without pointing out where there is wrong; how one can contend earnestly for the faith without voicing out aberrant positions and how one can “expose” the fruitless deeds of darkness by remaining silent.

Busy . I will revert

sagenaija:

Sometimes when words and phrases are bandied around there is need for the presenters of such words and phrases to clearly explain what they mean by them.

In the old covenant and new, repentance is still important. The new testament did not negate the necessity to repent. Therefore repentance is a PRINCIPLE. Something that is fundamental and WILL NEVER CHANGE. That is what a principle is. Respecting authority is another one.

Speaking evil about those in authority is DEFINITELY NOT the same as pointing out a wrong doctrine such persons have presented. Jesus was a religious ruler in his own right during his ministry and he vehemently pointed out the wrongs of the Pharisees and other religious rulers of Israel. Was he by that speaking evil of them? For example: If I say that Pastor A’s statement that “If don’t pay your tithe you’re going to end up in hell” is unscriptural and heretical, does that constitute an insult or a personal attack on his person?

"Pastor A is delusional" is speaking evil. "Pastor B is a scammer" and "Pastor C is a thief". That is all speaking evil. Mention the name of one Pharisee Jesus spoke about then you will know that Jesus never did the things you think he did.

When you talk about ‘anointed men of God’, is the Christian who holds no position of leadership in the church not also anointed? If so, is it the issue of ‘anointing’ or is it the issue of leadership and response to such that you are talking about?

Just like David was anointed as was Saul, yet David knew it was wrong to say anything evil about Saul. In the same way, all christians are anointed yet in the midst of that, some are designated leaders. Well, one biblical principle is to never say anything evil about them. PERIOD.

Is 1 Timothy 5:1 speaking about pointing out wrong doctrines that an older man peddles? In that Paul’s advise to Timothy, who was a young pastor, can we say then that pastors should follow that statement; in which case it does not flow in one direction only – what do you think?

You can address teachings; doctrines; tenets and state your position. You can even disagree with a leader's teachings USING scripture and ZERO name-calling. I don't believe that Job lost all he had because he was not a tither. I do not need to call the Pastor who said so a fraud to do so. There is a difference.

You both have still not shown me how one can “test every spirit” without pointing out where there is wrong; how one can contend earnestly for the faith without voicing out aberrant positions and how one can “expose” the fruitless deeds of darkness by remaining silent.

You person who does should simply provide scriptures and have a discussion. But when you say Pastor D is fake because he speaks in tongues, that is speaking evil and scriptures say such a person is an evil doer.